As a refresher, an Apple A5X processor that has seen its onboard RAM double from 512MB to 1GB powers the new iPad. The A5X is also blessed with a quad-core GPU which boosts gaming performance and helps feed the new iPad's biggest new feature: a 2048 x 1536 resolution Retina display. Other niceties include a 5MP rear-facing camera, and optional LTE connectivity.

On the negative side, the weight and thickness of the iPad has grown to accommodate a new 42.5 watt-hour battery (the iPad 2 had a 25 watt-hour battery). In addition, Apple is once again being stingy with storage capacities on the iPad. Even though app sizes are doubling or even tripling in some cases due to Retina support, Apple is holding firm with 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB capacities -- the same lineup as when the first generation iPad launched in 2010.

Tonight, however, we're getting our first look at what the new iPad can do courtesy of a flood of reviews. Here are some select excerpts from the reviews that are currently available:

Joshua Topolsky of The Verge gives his thoughts on the iPad 3's gorgeous new Retina display:

Yes, this display is outrageous. It's stunning. It's incredible. I'm not being hyperbolic or exaggerative when I say it is easily the most beautiful computer display I have ever looked at…

You literally can't see pixels on the iPad's display when you hold it at a regular distance, and even up close you have to really inspect the thing to see dots. For rendered text or high resolution images, it just looks otherworldly; like a glowing piece of paper.

The difference between the iPad 2's display and the new iPad's Retina display [Source: The Verge]

Walt Mossberg of AllThingsD fame touched on the battery life of the new iPad. While it's not quite the power-sipper as its predecessor, it still posts some impressive numbers.

Apple claims up to 10 hours of battery life between charges, and up to nine hours if you are relying strictly on cellular connectivity. In my standard battery test, where I play videos back to back with both cellular and Wi-Fi on, and the screen at 75% brightness, the new iPad logged 9 hours and 58 minutes, compared with 10 hours and 9 minutes for the iPad 2. Other tablets died hours sooner in the same test. In more normal use, the new iPad lasted more than a full day, though not as long as the iPad 2 did.

The original iPad didn't have any cameras at all, while the iPad 2 came with a standard front-facing camera for FaceTime and an incredibly subpar rear-facing camera for pictures and 720p video. The new iPad can now features a 5MP camera and bumps video recording up to 1080p. Vincent Nguyen of SlashGear gives his thoughts on the new optics:

Apple says it has borrowed the camera technology and optics from the iPhone 4S for the new iPad, though still the 5-megapixel images the tablet is capable of do lag behind the 8-megapixel examples from the smartphone. There’s more visible noise and chromatic aberrations at full zoom, though the quality is far, far better than any stills the iPad 2 can achieve. You also get face recognition for up to ten people per frame, automatically adjusting focus and exposure, but the camera app UI itself is no more complex than before.

While the actual CPU hasn't improved much over the iPad 2, the integrated GPU has definitely been turbocharged, as witnessed by Jason Snell of MacWorld:

That power comes from the X factor in the A5X processor—a new quad-core graphics engine. And sure enough, the third-generation iPad blows away every other iOS device in terms of graphics performance. In our tests using the GLBench 3D graphics testing app, the third-generation iPad could draw a complex 3D scene at the full frame rate of its display, 60 frames per second, without breaking a sweat. And in GLBench offscreen tests, which aren’t constrained by the display’s frame rate, the third-generation iPad had a frame rate 1.6 times that of the iPad 2 (and 13 times that of the original iPad).

[Source: MacWorld]

Overall, the new iPad seems to be another solid entry into the tablet field for Apple. It holds the line on CPU performance and battery life (at the expense of device thickness and weight) while offering an impressive Retina display, optional LTE, and a tremendous boost in graphics performance. Pricing remains the same as previous iPad model ($499/$599/$699 for Wi-Fi; add $130 for LTE models), but Apple still doesn't have the guts to give users an increase in storage capacities.

To sum things up, Joshua Topolsky offers these words of advice:

Let's be clear: the new iPad is in a class by itself, just as its predecessor was. As the latest product in a lineage of devices that defined this category, the iPad continues to stand head and shoulders above the competition. With the addition of the Retina display, LTE, more memory, and a more powerful CPU, Apple has absolutely held onto the iPad's market position as the dominant player and product to beat.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Out of all your comments, this one bugs me the most, because it's just an outright lie told by a delusion mind.

I hate to break the little bubble Apple has built around you, but a Tegra3 tablet is MORE responsive than an Apple iPad of any generation thanks to the touch processing built into Tegra 3's 5th companion core. The hardware touch processing is second to none, and many many major companies agree. nVidia actually innovated something pretty cool, and they know it. So please, if you're going to belittle Android and all that jazz, that's fine... but don't lie.

Touch responsiveness on a Tegra 3 tablet is second to nothing in the world. Having supposedly used a Prime, you should know this. But, that's ok, ignore facts and replace them with idiocy; that's why Apple is the wealthiest company in the entire world.

The Transformer Infinity is everything the iPad 3 is, only with an even better camera, a much more beautiful chassis and those widgets you so casually just chose to attack for adding functionality to the device (are you that daft that you actually attack something useful because it wasn't invented by Apple?)

quote: have you used iPad? it's soooo much more responsive you are the one who is delusional.

Yep, have one 2 feet from me currently. My wife uses it on a daily basis, and I have more than enough screen time with it.

It's not more responsive than my Prime, not by a long shot, especially in things like Sketchbook Pro, etc.

Tegra 3's touch processing is just that, actual hardware driven, fully dedicated on SoC touch processing at nominal power usage. The iPad doesn't have that (until they copy it off nVidia and claim they invent it that is...)

So, no, it's not more responsive. Please stop spreading lies, thanks! Apple doesn't shit rainbows and unicorns, nor does Google. Ice Cream Sandwich is more modern than iOS. iOS has more apps. At the end of the day, it comes down to the user's experience with the device; Apple delivers a good one, as does Samsung as does ASUS.

All this idiocy is getting really old. My ASUS Transformer Prime is as good as your iPad 2/3. Ok? It's AS GOOD AS IT. Your Apple product isn't lesser than mine nor is it better. Don't degrade my product in an effort to make you feel better about your $499 spent. My Prime does what I want and what I need of it, and it does it in a sleek, seamless manner which I prefer. If your iPad 3 does the same for you, more power to you buddy! Just SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT TO ME. That's all I think really needs to stop happening here; Apple users are snobs and Android users have nerdgasms. Knock it off...

True nerds recognise that the iPad is a far more advanced piece of hardware. The reason some educated 'nerds' prefer Android is because they dislike Apple.

I've used both a Transformer Prime and an iPad 2 in stores (I bought neither), and the iPad was far and away the more responsive and nicer tablet to use.

There are hundreds of reviews which conclude the same thing. You say you're Asus Prime is 'as good'? Sorry, but no, it just isn't. It is worse in nearly every important metric. The only benefit is a marginally faster CPU which doesn't translate to any real world gain. Then there's the slower graphics, the battery life, the apps, the reliability. It's just not as good. And the sales figures reflect this.

It's not about 'snobbery' - it's logical people realising which devices are more capable than others. Then the people who bought the slower device, of course, go into a defensive rant about how it's the 'same'.

It seems you're touching upon a cogent issue. Is an Android tablet better if it takes a disproportionate amount of hardware horsepower to get an equitable result? I believe this was some of the subtext in Anand's ICS tablet review. e.g., "It screams on this hardware." The caveats at hand, however, were that it had taken Google only 5 years to make an OS that BEGINS to compete with iOS in terms of ease of use and fluidity. Second, if it takes all that oomph just to get it up to speed, what does that say about the code? Would love to see a Droid OS built from the ground up as a touch based OS. The origins of the OS as a blackberry competitor have not been kind to the platform, not to mention the usual issues of fragmentation. As an aside, I do find it ironic that those who bought in early to the whole Droid "freedom" train seem to be oblivious to Google effort's to reign in the ecosystem in a much more Apple-like fashion.

The fluidity of the i-stuff is based upon the use of the GPU to control the interface. Google chose to use the CPU instead - probably to ensure the greatest compatibility. The GPU is much more efficient at this. This Android shortcoming has been addressed by Tegra3 by using a hardware accelerator for the touchscreen itself.

"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet. A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis